Idoit40fans wrote:Froggy is correct. This is not a hate crime. Hate crimes require violence, there was no violence here. If you want to suggest that a thrown banana is violent, I want to suggest that you check out the real world.

Almost every single definition I can find suggests that they do. They're either direct violence against an individual or vandalism.

At the very least, it requires that some other crime be committed specifically because of someone's race. Im not sure what crime they're committing. Certainly violating rules set by the arena, but no crime.

Idoit40fans wrote:Almost every single definition I can find suggests that they do. They're either direct violence against an individual or vandalism.

At the very least, it requires that some other crime be committed specifically because of someone's race. Im not sure what crime they're committing. Certainly violating rules set by the arena, but no crime.

There were 5,542 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against persons in 2008. Intimidation accounted for 48.8 percent of crimes against persons, simple assaults for 32.1 percent, and aggravated assaults for 18.5 percent. Seven murders were reported as hate crimes.

Sec. 26‑1. Elements of the Offense. (a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly: (1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace; or...

This was obviously disorderly conduct. Throwing a banana at a white player with no black players in proximity is simply disorderly conduct. Throwing it at a black player (the irony of the poster using "connotation") makes it a hate crime.

I don't get why this is a legal debate. Some people don't connote this with a "hate crime". That's perfectly reasonable. Other people think that adding a bit of harmless non sequitur into this thread isn't a big deal. Whether it's ok to go nuclear on those people is how we got here.

Hate crime laws have been passed to discourage ethnic (or other forms) intimidation. Thinking ethnic intimidation requires a noose is ignorant. The FBI data is based on real statistics. The FBI and various state legislatures did not consult with me when defining what constitutes a hate crime. The term means what it means. It isn't ambiguous.

Nearly half (48.8%) of the hate crimes involving acts against people didn't involve any violence at all. Violent crimes (felonious) only accounted for 18.8% of hate crimes, a much smaller percentage. Simple assault is usually a misdemeanor, a minor offense. Aggravated assault is usually a felony, a serious offense.

If you factor in hate crimes against property in addition to people, non-violent crimes (ethnic intimidation) against people still make up 29.5% of incidents, again a much larger percentage than violent hate crimes.

Throwing a banana at a white hockey player and a black hockey player mean two totally different things. That is why hate crime laws were passed in some states to provide greater deterrent for crimes involving racial intimidation.

If people think its funny to make racially incendiary jokes its a statement of their ignorance.

It became a legal debate when posters tried to say hate crime was an inappropriate term to describe what happened. What happened is a hate crime in many places because hate crimes overwhelmingly don't involve beatings, murders, or other felonious violent crimes that already carry harsh penalties in most jurisdictions. Anybody that didn't already understand that was mistaken.

doublem wrote:The guy may have been a Detroit fan according to Twitter.

There are many of those in this area, though. I'd probably rank Detroit as third or fourth in terms of the amount of fans they have: Toronto, Montreal, Detroit, Boston ( higher if you only take people who were alive for Bobb Orr's career into account).